Empirical evidence suggests that some health professionals believe consent procedures
for the emerging technology of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) should become less
rigorous than those currently used for invasive prenatal testing. In this paper, we consider
the importance of informed consent and informed choice procedures for protecting
autonomy in those prenatal tests which will give rise to a definitive result. We consider
whether there is anything special about NIPD that could sanction a change to consent
procedures for prenatal diagnosis or otherwise render informed decision-making less
important. We accept the claim that the absence of risk of miscarriage to some extent
lessens the gravity of the decision to test compared with invasive methods of testing.
However, we also claim that the definitive nature of the information received, and the fact
that the information can lead to decisions of great significance, makes NIPD an important
choice. This choice should only be made by means of a rigorous and appropriately
supported decision-making process (assuming that this is what the pregnant woman
wants). We conclude that, on balance, consent procedures for NIPD should mirror those
for invasive testing, albeit without the need to emphasise procedure-related risk.
Keywords: autonomy; decision making; informed choice; informed consent; prenatal
diagnosis.

This work is protected by Copyright. All rights reserved. Access to this work is provided for the purposes of personal research and study. Except where permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, this work must not be copied or communicated to others without the express permission of the copyright owner. Use the persistent URI in this record to enable others to access this work.